Bobby Hart 18-20 PFF grade 60.3
KeviN Zietler 18-20 pff grade 73.2
Gabe Jackson 18-20 pff grade 66.4
Matt feiler 18-20 PFF grade 70.9
Germain Ifidi 18-20 PFF grade 59.2
Trai Turner 18-20 PFF grade 55.5 however 18-19 Grade 65.9

I think I’m seeing a lot of battered wife syndrome with the Hart isn’t that bad talk.

But idk maybe I have some of my own because I’m not writing off MJ.

(03-13-2021, 05:26 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Too expensive for a back up IMO.

Not a backup if he plays guard and starts plus injuries always happen we can shift him if needed

(03-13-2021, 02:40 PM)Trademark Wrote:

Bobby Hart scored a career high 66.3 grade from PFF last year.

Other guys we're excited about signing...

Kevin Zeitler: 65.9
Gabe Jackson: 63.7
Matt Feiler: 65.9
Trai Turner: 34.8
Germain Ifedi: 65.5

— Goodberry (@JoeGoodberry) March 13, 2021

I get this, but isn't it more relevant to compare the FA Guards to the awful Michael Jordan numbers that started the season?  

(03-13-2021, 04:52 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Feel the same way and these grades just show why I put no stock in PFF. Spain and XSF were clearly better than Jordan 
by a wide margin. Feiler is way better than Hart as well, cause he can pass block. We need to protect Burrow, priority #1.

Are they, though?  I am not trying to flame you, but the guys that started week 1-6 faced a murderers row of defensive lines.  Not so much down the stretch.  The Bengals started so poorly, it makes you question the preparation as much as the talent.  

Hart was 66 because his run block was 68. His pass block was 60. Find someone who is a better pass blocker.

While not the same position, Zeitler had a pass block score of 68 and Gabe Jackson had basically 70. Feiler was 69 pass block.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First of all it is hard to create stats for O-linemen.

I don't put a lot of weight in PFF individual ratings because it is highly subjective and their formula is flawed (one player can be ranked higher than another despite playing fewer snaps and messing up more often).

Even more objective stats like "sacks allowed" and "pressures" are not exact because observers can not always tell which player was supposed to block which rusher.

The nextgen stat "pass block win percentage" is very interesting, but I can't find full lists on that.

I have not seen all the data from 2020, but based on a lot of different sources like "penalties", "sacks allowed", "blown blocks" (from footballoutsiders), in addition to the PFF ratings it was clear that Bobby Hart was pure garbage in 2018, but improved dramatically in 2019.  And from what I have seen so far of the 2020 numbers it looks like he will be about the same as he was in 2019.

Most people hate Bobby for 2 reasons.  

First, they can't get over 2018.  This has happened with a lot of players over the years and is completely understandable. First impressions are very powerful.  For years people here claimed Andrew Whitworth could not handle speed rushers and needed to be moved to OG just because he got abused by Mathis as a rookie.  And People claimed Leon hall was too slow because he got beaten by Ted Ginn in college.

Second, they judge him based on a handful of very bad misses.  But the fact is that If I just showed you Joe Burrows 5 or 6 worst plays of the year he would look like trash also.

My opinion of Bobby Hart is that he is an average starting OT.  I would not mind if we upgraded him, but it won't be as easy (or cheap) as a lot of people think.  PFF ranked him as the #40 OT in the league and by the end of free agency he will probably be about the #40 paid OT in 2020.  He is currently the 32nd highest paid OT which is still not far from #40.  He definitely is not the bum many people here claim, and our OGs were a much bigger problem last year.

I lost a lot of faith in PFF grades on OLmen this past season. When Hopkins went down, Price came in and played a great game starting at C and they gave him a really low score. I rewatched that game a couple times, and there was just no way. There were other instances that I cant recall details of that made PFF look a bit ridiculous on their OLmen scores. The grades on Spain compared to Jordan as well. Spain was a massive upgrade, but according to PFF Jordan was almost just as good. Rolling my eyes lol...

(03-14-2021, 11:44 AM)bengaloo Wrote: I lost a lot of faith in PFF grades on OLmen this past season. When Hopkins went down, Price came in and played a great game starting at C and they gave him a really low score. I rewatched that game a couple times, and there was just no way. There were other instances that I cant recall details of that made PFF look a bit ridiculous on their OLmen scores. The grades on Spain compared to Jordan as well. Spain was a massive upgrade, but according to PFF Jordan was almost just as good. Rolling my eyes lol...

I thought the same thing until you really go back and watch plays closely. Getting beat off the snap and the QB getting rid of the ball makes it appear that a player did their job, when they actually didn't. When that happens multiple times, the grade is going to be lower than it appears it should.

That's where most people have an issue with PFF. They see a guy not getting blown up and think he did a good job when it was actually the QB that bailed him out. Getting beat off the snap, or getting pushed into the backfield consistently is going to cause your grade to drop, even if the result of the play isn't a sack or QB hit. Getting blown up once or twice is going to put you in a hole that would require you to have several good plays to balance out.

I stopped bothering with people who consistently doubt the PFF grades a while ago because they don't bother to take all of that into consideration. 

Spain had a pass block efficiency of 97.6 with a total of 19 pressures in 411 pass block snaps. Rated 25th out of 57 qualifiers.
Jordan had a pass block efficiency of 96.0 with a total of 35 pressures in 477 pass block snaps. Rated 54th out of 57 qualifiers.

(03-14-2021, 11:44 AM)bengaloo Wrote: I lost a lot of faith in PFF grades on OLmen this past season. When Hopkins went down, Price came in and played a great game starting at C and they gave him a really low score. I rewatched that game a couple times, and there was just no way. There were other instances that I cant recall details of that made PFF look a bit ridiculous on their OLmen scores. The grades on Spain compared to Jordan as well. Spain was a massive upgrade, but according to PFF Jordan was almost just as good. Rolling my eyes lol...

Just wanted to touch on this, specifically, real quick.

I went back and watched the Cleveland game and the Tennessee game. In the Cleveland game they graded him very well; 82.4 pblock and 70.7 rblock. It was the 2 penalties that killed his overall grade in that game. In the Tennessee game, once again, he graded well in rblock @ 72.6 but his pblock was only a 18.9. I just watched the first half of this game and saw 4 things that stood out. False start penalty on the double snap. Errant snap that Burrow had to chase down. Completely missed a blitzer up the middle and got destroyed on one other 1v1 matchup with a defender. 

One thing i didn't point out in my last post was that pblock, rblock and overall grades are three completely different things. They don't average 1 and 2 to get 3, so i can see where people would be dismissive of the overall grade because it seems more subjective. They do have a formula how how all are done but no one outside them knows exactly what it is.

People have to understand, if you simply just "do your job" you get a 0 on the play--that's "average". So just blocking your guy most of the time isn't a "good game" in the same way it might be by just watching it as a fan. 

(03-13-2021, 11:06 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Not a backup if he plays guard and starts plus injuries always happen we can shift him if needed

Well if Hart is starting at Guard I guess I am down. Should help him instead of being on the edge cause he isn't a good pass blocker.

(03-14-2021, 08:43 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Are they, though?  I am not trying to flame you, but the guys that started week 1-6 faced a murderers row of defensive lines.  Not so much down the stretch.  The Bengals started so poorly, it makes you question the preparation as much as the talent.  

XSF was our best O-lineman besides Jonah last year in my opinion and Spain came in late and had to learn a new system 
under Turner who wasn't the best O-line coach. XSF was also injured for a large part of the season and I still think both 
were WAY better than Jordan. Jordan was terrible.

And yeah, Feiler is a MUCH better pass blocker than Hart.

One time we disagree lol

(03-14-2021, 03:37 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: People have to understand, if you simply just "do your job" you get a 0 on the play--that's "average". So just blocking your guy most of the time isn't a "good game" in the same way it might be by just watching it as a fan. 

I don't agree with that philosophy of grading the effectiveness of an OL.  The first goal of an OL is to block, or prevent the defender from making a play or disrupting the play.  Having played both OL and DL in my lifetime, I've always been taught that a stalemate is considered a win for the OL, as the DL failed to complete his mission while the OL succeeded at his.

(03-14-2021, 03:37 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: People have to understand, if you simply just "do your job" you get a 0 on the play--that's "average". So just blocking your guy most of the time isn't a "good game" in the same way it might be by just watching it as a fan. 

You know what happens if every blocker "just does his job" on a play.  Huge gains in the running game and zero sacks allowed.

I can rate all the dumps my dog took this week, but in the end, it's still dog crap.

(03-14-2021, 07:14 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I don't agree with that philosophy of grading the effectiveness of an OL.  The first goal of an OL is to block, or prevent the defender from making a play or disrupting the play.  Having played both OL and DL in my lifetime, I've always been taught that a stalemate is considered a win for the OL, as the DL failed to complete his mission while the OL succeeded at his.

It's highly unlikely that a player will get a stalemate on every single play. There are going to be times you move him and he moves you. The goal is to move him more. Starting out at "average" isn't a bad thing. It only takes a few good plays, consistently, to get grades that move you up the ladder. Plus, a Olineman can statemate a defender, right till the time the runner hits the line of scrimmage and he makes the tackle. Is that a win for the Olineman?

I wouldn't say i'm 100% on board with how they grade. But i've become pretty content with the consistency i see from a player game to game or from players on different teams. The fact that each play is graded by at least 2 different people before it's posted helps to keep it as objective as possible. 

(03-14-2021, 07:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You know what happens if every blocker "just does his job" on a play.  Huge gains in the running game and zero sacks allowed.

That doesn't happen in the real world. 

Would we ultimately be ok with Zeitler and Hart at the guard positions, assuming we draft Sewell and shove him at RT?

At that point we'd need to make Trey Hopkins the back up C and pick up a legit center

(03-13-2021, 03:12 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Jordan: 55.7
Spain: 56.7
XSF: 59.1

Why are we comparing different positions? I won't swear to it, but I don't think the grades work for cross-position comparison. (Assuming you put much stock in the grades to begin with. I think they're just an interesting reference point.)

In related news, Randy Bullock's field goal numbers are way betterer than Uber Huber's.



I mean, I get the point (I think), Hart would be a better guard than some of the guys we're looking at. But Hart didn't play guard, so it's not exactly comparable to say 'he did this as a tackle, so he'd be at least this good as a guard.' Plus, I think I remember reading somewhere Hart didn't want to play guard.

At this point, I think to fix things, I'd be pumped if we: draft Sewell for LT, kept Hart at RT (where he's not horrible), moved Jonah to RG (cause he either needs a change of pace or a wake up call that it's not OK to play 1/4 of your contract) and pick up a Thuney at LG.

(03-13-2021, 06:33 PM)J24 Wrote: Bobby Hart 18-20 PFF grade 60.3
KeviN Zietler 18-20 pff grade 73.2
Gabe Jackson 18-20 pff grade 66.4
Matt feiler 18-20 PFF grade 70.9
Germain Ifidi 18-20 PFF grade 59.2
Trai Turner 18-20 PFF grade 55.5 however 18-19 Grade 65.9

Problem with this is Hart has steadily trended upwards in that timeframe, meaning he's improved.  The rest of those guys have trended downward, meaning they're on the decline.

That's not to say we shouldn't sign any of this guys, as even mediocre G's would be a big upgrade for us.  

(03-14-2021, 11:09 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: It's highly unlikely that a player will get a stalemate on every single play. There are going to be times you move him and he moves you. The goal is to move him more. Starting out at "average" isn't a bad thing. It only takes a few good plays, consistently, to get grades that move you up the ladder. Plus, a Olineman can statemate a defender, right till the time the runner hits the line of scrimmage and he makes the tackle. Is that a win for the Olineman?

That sounds like a good way to grade OL in the 80s. Preventing a DL from disrupting the QB is the foundation of modern offenses. If a guy can blow DL off of the LOS, that's helpful, but a lot of those types of guys play like Alex Redmond. How many top teams are run first nowadays? Most of those teams use Kubiak style zone concepts and aren't all about blowing dudes off of the LOS. The Ravens seem like a team that does a bit of both, but they have a great defense. I'm inclined to agree with Sunset.